House Should Reject Ryan Budget


In 1983, the British Labor Party issued its manifesto for the coming election, demanding a radical move away from the West, the dismantling of the U.K. military and increases in taxes and more government regulation. The manifesto so alienated the British electorate that Conservative Party MP Gerald Kaufman called it “the longest suicide note in history.”

Dick Morris 3

The Medicare changes suggested by Congressman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget give it a similar flavor. Republicans would do well not to be recorded as voting in favor.

The key line in the Medicare changes outlined in the program is “Beginning in 2024 … ” While Congressional procedure demands ten year budgeting, why should the Republican Party give the Democrats ammunition for the next five elections? Why should House Republicans put their necks on the line every two years for changes that are proposed to take effect a decade hence?

Congressman Ryan’s earlier attempts to rein in Medicare, while substantively admirable, cost the Party dearly in the election of 2012. By then, he had retreated from his original position and, with the cover of some support from wayward Democrats, had amended his plan to allow seniors to continue the current Medicare program.

But nobody read — or will read — the fine print. The headline will be, as it has been: “Republicans Propose Medicare Cuts.”

At a time when the Republican Party is newly attracting the elderly, as they feel the pinch of the $500 billion President Obama cut to actual benefits, Ryan’s prescription for long-term cuts a decade away will give them pause in switching their votes.

Democrats can easily counter the Medicare Advantage cut, which hurts one third of all seniors, by saying that the GOP wants to cut Medicare, too.

We must realize that the Republican Party is at a great innate disadvantage over the Medicare issue. Having opposed the initial program and pushed cuts in its rate of growth in 1995-96 — even closing down the government to achieve them — the party is not the darling of America’s elderly. The Ryan Budget just will serve to re-ignite fears that the GOP hasn’t changed and still is gunning for the program.

The cuts Obama is forcing on Medicare this year are drastic and have begun rippling through America’s senior population. Gallup reports that “U.S. seniors have moved from a reliably Democratic group to a reliably Republican one over the past two decades.” And, have “shown an outright preference for the Republican Party since 2010.”

Gallup notes that “today’s seniors were once Democrats.” In 1993, today’s seniors voted Democrat by 12 percentage points. But they have shifted with time and age, driven by Obamacare and his Medicare cuts.

House Republicans should not adopt a budget that will drive them back from whence they came.

Were the Medicare cuts on our immediate agenda, it would be different. But since they are to take effect only in 2024, why must we go on record voting for them now?

Eventually, the system must move toward a private one paid for by government vouchers and subsidies. But elderly will still worry that the government payments will fall short and will be concerned that the system as a whole will be fatally weakened by making participation in traditional fee-for-service Medicare voluntary.

Ryan’s plan is a good one and deserves passage some years hence, but why vote for it today?

Indeed, Republicans can make a virtue of necessity and trumpet their votes against the proposal as they campaign around the country this year. Has Ryan done them a favor by giving them the chance to vote no?

Also see,

Hillary Uses Gender To Win

Related Articles

2

Control politicians, not guns

If laws were enough to deter criminal behavior prisons would be empty. The latest effort to “control” guns in America

0

Two prime ministers

Following the hacking death of a British soldier by two alleged Islamic extremists, Prime Minister David Cameron said, “There is

1

Important Slow News

Wars, plane crashes, mass murder — it’s easy to report news that happens suddenly. Reporters do a good job covering